Skip to main content

Full text of "The Wenzelbibel, Cod. Pal. Vindob. 2759-2764"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 

IV.— THE WENZELBIBEL, Cod. Pal. Vindob. 2759-2764. 

This, the most famous MS of the group called by Walther ' 
" 2. Zweig," comprises only the Old Testament, and that not 
quite complete. The MS is of parchment, and consists at present 
of six large folio volumes. A somewhat reduced facsimile of a 
page of the first volume is given by Walther opposite col. 296. 
The first volume contains the five books of Moses, and Joshua ; 
the second, Judges, Ruth, and the four books of Kings ; the 
third, Chronicles, Manasseh's Prayer, first to third Ezra, Tobias, 
and the first seven verses of Judith ; the fourth, Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
Judith, Esther, Job, and the Latin introduction to the Psalms; 
the fifth, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Solomon's Song, Wis- 
dom of S., Ecclesiasticus and Prayer of S.; the sixth, Isaiah, 
Jeremiah (without Lamentations), Baruch, Ezekiel. The MS is 
written in large Gothic letters. The literature is given by Walther, 
col. 291. 

The material for the present paper was obtained in Vienna in 
the summer of 1898. Having occasion to examine the MS for 
the purposes of another investigation, I noticed that the MS had 
not as yet been accurately described as regards scribes and 
dialects, and therefore made notes and extracts which form the 
basis of this article. Recently, a book by F. Jelinek 2 has 
appeared, in which a considerable portion of my work has been 
anticipated. Jelinek first describes the MS and the scribes, points 
out certain errors of translation, and prints the prologue. He 
then discusses in order the various vowels and consonants, 
declension, conjugation, and certain syntactical phenomena. At 

1 Die deutsche Bibelttbersetzung des Mittelalters, dargestellt von Wilh. 
Walther. Braunschweig, 1889-92. 

2 Die Sprache der Wenzelsbibel in ihrem Verhaltnis zu der Sprache der 
wichtigsten deutschen Literatur- und Rechtsdenkmaler aus BShmen und 
Mahren im XIV. Jahrhundert und der kaiserlichen Kanzlei der Luxemburger. 
Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache von Dr. 
Franz Jelinek. Gorz, 1899. Selbstverlag des Verfassers. Pp. no. Dr. 
Goldlin von Tiefenau, Kustos of the Imperial library, who has most kindly 
given me additional information on doubtful points, also first informed me of 
the appearance of the above article. 


the same time comparisons are made with various Bohemian 
texts of the fourteenth century. Finally, the various dialectic 
phenomena are summed up, and the author concludes that the 
translation originated at the end of the fourteenth century, in the 
region to the north or northwest of Prague. 

In so far as the above paper has anticipated the present one, 
the treatment will be very brief; other questions will be treated 
more in detail. 

Four scribes contributed to the work, who change about fifteen 
times. The first scribe wrote the first two volumes, and 6 ff. of 
the third (Gen. to Paral. 4. 38). The text is decidedly Middle 
German, though the long vowels are generally diphthongized. 
The pronoun er often appears as her, the earliest place noted 
being Gen. 18. 19, in the first volume. This writing becomes 
more and more frequent in the course of the first and second 
vols., extending into the third. Jelinek, p. 72, cites instances only 
from the third volume. M.H.G. ■& generally appears as ou, most 
frequently in the words ous, ouf. This scribe never writes aus, 
auf, in this early portion at least. Sometimes even the undiph- 
thongized vowel appears, as in cziten,fruntschaft, and still oftener 
in us, uf, though in the beginning this is rare. The old diph- 
thong ou generally appears as ou, though later au appears. 
Flexional i is frequent; ver- uniformly appears as vor-; "ruck- 
umlaut" preterites are very frequent; ie often appears as i; the 
suffix -lich appears as such ; the diphthong of i, as also the old 
diphthong ei, are written ei. 

This scribe continues to vol. 3, f. 6 verso . Fol. j" ct ° begins 
(I Paral. 4. 38) : | -ret grossleick ufi sie ingiengen in gadar uncz 
zu dem awfgangk des tals. 1 This is by a Bavarian scribe (2), 
forms such as tail, waid, aus, hawser, tragund, pergk, schoffen 
{ovibus) gewant (= 0), occurring on this page. The writing is 
larger, the ink blacker, illustrations and superscriptions are lack- 
ing, while they do occur on the pages immediately preceding and 
following. Fol. yverso i s blank, with the exception of one line. 
F. 7 recto ends (I Paral. 5. 18) : pogen zu dem streitt | and the 
verso contains : [ vier und vierczigk tawsendt. On f. 8 rect0 the 
first scribe sets in again, the line on f. 7 V - being repeated thus : 
vier und vierczik t0z«entt und siben hundert und vierczik czihende 

X I quote the text and places according to the Vulgate, where the various 
changes occur, as these are not given by Jelinek. Indeed the whole matter 
of the scribes is disposed of by him in less than a page. 


zu streite. This repetition, which occurs at almost every change 
of scribes, generally gives an indication of the change of dialect, 
cf. tawsendt : towsentt. Sometimes only one word is repeated ; 
at others, nearly a whole sentence. The reason for this "varying 
repetition is not yet entirely clear to me : Jelinek does not note 
these repetitions at all. 

It is evident that fol. 7 was inserted later by the Bavarian 
scribe (2), who supplied a gap left by scribe 1. The omission 
by scribe 1 probably came about as follows : — Up to 4. 38, where 
the break occurs, the text consists entirely of an enumeration of 
the various families. With the next verse the narrative sets in, 
continuing to the end of the chapter. In the following chapter 
the enumeration of the families begins again, and continues to 
verse 18, where the narrative begins again. The scribe probably 
made a pause, and on commencing again found the place where 
the enumeration of the families ends, but in the fifth chapter, 
instead of the fourth. Jelinek assumes, p. 4, bot., that, along with 
others, this leaf had been lost and then replaced by the Bavarian 
scribe. If this were the case, we should expect both sides of the 
new leaf to be filled, and more than filled, for the writing on the 
new leaf is larger than that of scribe 1. 

The first scribe, who sets in again f. 8 r -, continues to the end of 
f. I28 v -: Und hast uns gegeben ein solich wurtzen || (III Esdras 
8. 88). On f. I29 r - the Bavarian scribe (2) sets in again : | soWche 
wurczii und haben wider umbgekert . . . Characteristic forms such 
as vermischt, unraynigkait, aus, auf, junkchfrawn, waynund, 
weliben (= S) (col. 1, 1. 14), nymbar (= w) (1. 16), occur on this 
page; on f. 130: pischolf, puech, grosleich. (For pischolf cf. 
Weinhold, Bair. Gram., §159.) This Bavarian scribe (2) continues 
to the end of f. I36 v - : chert auch gesunnter herwider zw uns und 
deine augenn | (= Tobias 5. 26). On f. i37 r - the Middle German 
scribe (1) sets in again : | ougen werden yn sehen wene ich 
geloube . . . 

This change of scribes helps to solve a question concerning the 
translation itself. Jelinek, it may be noted, does not mention the 
existence of any related MSS, whereas at least eleven exist ; cf. 
Walther, col. 291. One of these, cgm. 341, may possibly be 
older than the Wenzelbibel. At all events, the other MSS do not 
descend from the Wb., but from some other MS now lost. This 
will be shown conclusively later on. In spite of these MSS 
Jelinek treats the Wb. as if it were a unique, original translation, 


and merely refers to a " Concept," which in all the wanderings and 
vicissitudes of the MS remained with it, so that later, lost portions 
could be replaced by the Bavarian scribes ! On p. 12 he asserts 
rather naively that a comparison with the second pre-Lutheran 
printed Bible proves this to be a different translation. It is thus 
evident that he is entirely ignorant of the work of Walther, who 
proved this fact nearly ten years ago. 

In the matter of the text and scribes of the Wb., Walther, to be 
sure, is not very successful. In the first place, he fails to note the 
presence of the third book of Esdras, which in the MS continues 
the second book (Nehemiah) without a break or change in the 
superscriptions; at the end, f. i3i T -, the scribe wrote: "alhie 
endt sich das ander puech Esdras," which, no doubt, also misled 
Walther. This confusion probably existed very early in the 
translation, and was not brought about by the scribe of the 
Wb., for the Maihingen MS to be quoted later also shares this 
confusion. Walther therefore states, col. 306 : " Wunderbarer- 
weise bietet die Wenzelbibel im Buche Tobias eine durchaus 
andere Uebersetzung als die ubrigen Handschriften. Wir haben 
diese Partie von dem 2. Uebersetzungskreise auszuschliessen, und 
werden sie spater als den fiinften Zweig behandeln." Later, 
cols. 348-350, he treats the book of Tobias under the heading 
"5- Zweig." 

Walther is unable to determine where this new translation has 
its beginning and end. During my stay in Vienna I was also 
unable to determine this, not being able to compare with the texts 
of the other MSS. Later, on comparing extracts from the Mai- 
hingen MS, from Tobias 8. 3-10, and 11. 3, which I had made for 
other purposes, I found that in these passages the Wb. agreed 
with the text of Maihingen and the rest, so that the return to the 
old translation in the Wb. must have taken place before this. 
The Bavarian scribe, as before noted, had stopped at f. 136'- = 
Tobias 5. 26, and I therefore suspected that the " 5. Zweig " of 
Walther ended with this scribe, and probably also began with the 
same, III Esdras 8. 88. Dr. Goldlin v. Tiefenau kindly sent me 
a copy of the last lines off. i28 v> , and Dr. G. Grupp at Maihingen 
copied the corresponding portions of the Maihingen MS III D. 
1, fol. 1, which belongs to the same group, but contains the uni- 
form translation of Walther's "2. Zweig." A comparison of the 
two texts proved my conjecture to be correct. To the bottom of 

f. I28 v - of the Wb. the two MSS agree almost letter for letter, 



whereas from f. i2o r - they are entirely different, as a glance at the 
annexed texts will show. This difference continues to f. 136*- 
inch of the Wb., = Tobias 5. 26, and on the following page they 
again agree exactly. The new translation was therefore inserted 
by the Bavarian scribe (2), and extends from III Esdras 8. 88 to 
Tobias 5. 26, exactly 8 pp., a signature. 

Cod. Pal. Vind. 2761, f°- I28 T ', 

col. 2, 11. 23-36. 

(Ill Esdras 8. 85 seqq.) 

Und nu ewer tSch 

ter nicht fuget zti iren Sune 
Und ire tochter nemet nicht 
ewern sunen. Und siichet 
nicht vride zu haben mit 
yn alle czeit. so das oberwi- 
dende esset die guten der 
erden. Und teilet das erbe 
ewern sunen untz bis ewi 
clich. Und was euch wider 
vert I das geschicht alles 
durch ewer posen werk un 
durch ewer grosen sunde. 
Und hast uns gegeben ein 
apponatur: solich wurtzen 
(End off - 128 s -.) 

Maihingen MS III D. i,fol. 1. 

Und nu ewer toch- 
ter nit fuget zu iren sunen 
und ir tochter nemet nicht 
ewern sunen und suchet 
nit fryde zu haben mit 
yn alezit so das uberwin- 
dende esset dy guten der 
erden und teylet das erbe 
ewern sunen uncz bis ewi- 
glichen und was euch wider- 
veret das geschicht alles 
durch ewer pose wergk und 
dorch ewer gross sunde 
und hast uns geben ein 
semlich wurtzeln 

fo. I29 >'Mto ) c0 ] It J j 

soleiche wurczn und ha 
ben wider umbgekert ze 
ubertreten dein saczung 
das wir uns vermtischt 
wiirden der unraynnig 
kait des auserlendischen 
volkchs des daygen Ian 
dts wirst du dann herr ich- 
czurnen uns. und uns ze 
uerderben. Als langk daz 
nicht beleib unser wurczn 
und nam. Herr got israhl' 
der du warhaftig pist. wen 
weliben ist dy warhaft 
wurczn unczt auf den hew 
ttigen tag. Ny'mbar yeczflt 
sey wir in unsern poszhait 
ten vor deinem angesicht. 

und aber 
wider sein wir wider gekart zu 
ubertreten dein elichen werk 
so das wir uns vormischten 
der unreynigkeit fremder 
heyden diser 

nicht zurne uns 
vorliesend uns uncz bis 
nicht gelassen werd 
unser czweigk und 
unser nam. Herre got 
warhafft bistu : wen 
verlassen ist der 
czweig bis in desen 
heutigen tagk. Sich nu 
seyn wir in unsern sunden 
in diner angesicht. 


6 7 

Cod. Pal. Vind. 2761, f°- 136™™, 

col. 2, 1. 3 to end of page. 

(Tobias 5. 23 seqq.) 

. . Und do sy nw fertig warn 
do hueb an sein muter ze way 
nen und sprechen zum vater 
Nw hast du genomen dein 
aufhaltung den stab unsers 
alters und hast yn gesantt 
von uns. Nymmer mer solt 
sein das selbig gelt. Darumb 
du yn gesantt hast. Genuegt 
hyet vns vnser armut das wirs 
geschaczt hiette fur reichtumb 
So wir angesehe hiette unsern 
sun. Do sprach zu yr Thobias 
Du scholt nicht waynenn 
unser Sun chumbt gesunt 
ter do hynn Und chert au 
ch'gesunntter herwider zw 
uns und deine augenn 
(End of f- 136™"°.) 

Maihingen MS III D. i,fol. 1. 

. . und do sy hin geczogen waren 

do begonde sein muter weynen 

und sprechen den stap unsers 

alters hastu 


und hast yn gesant 

von uns das nicht were 

das gelt nach dem 

du yn gesant hast wen genuget 

hett uns unser armut und 

als den reichtflme hetten wir ge- 

achtet das das wir hetten gesehen un- 

siine Und thobias sprach zu ir [sern 

nicht wein 

gesunt kumpt unss sune 


zu uns 

und deyn augen 

fo. i37wto ) co i_ j] t> etc 

ougen werden yn sehen. we 
ne ich geloube das der gute 
engel gotes wander mit im 
und schicke wol alle dink di 
pei im werden gehandelt al 
so das . . . etc. 

werden in sehen und 
ich glaub das der gut 
engel gotes mit ym wander 
und schicke wol alle dingk dy 
by ym werden gehandelt al- 
so das . . . etc. 

Of this new translation III Esdras 8. 88-Tobias 5. 26 there are 
no further traces. To assume with Jelinek, pp. 4, 5, that this 
portion had been lost from the MS and replaced by the Bavarian 
scribe (2) is not possible, for the new scribe would not at all have 
been able in that case to gauge his work so as to fill exactly eight 
pages. We must assume that this portion was written before 
that which follows. 

The Middle German scribe (ij, who sets in again here, on 
f. I37 r -, continues to the end of vol. 3, f. 144. This is another 
signature of 8 pp., and contains the rest of Tobias and seven 
verses of Judith. Thus far the order of the books has been that 
of the Vulgate; but the fourth volume, instead of continuing 
Judith, begins with Isaiah. This is the work of the Bavarian 


scribe again, who continues to f. io v -, only one-fourth of the verso 
being filled. In this section there are no illustrations. The first 
col. of f. io v - ends, about half-way down the page : wirt sy fressen 
und enczunt wirt in der dikche des waldes (Isaiah 9. 18). The 
italicized words are by a later hand. The second column is 
blank, with the exception of the line at the bottom : wirt id' dikche. 
These are the work of the Bavarian scribe (2), and continue the 
sentence from enczunt. A later reviser inserted the same words 
above, immediately after enczunt. This later reviser was also a 
Bavarian, to judge from the form dikche. 

On f. 1 i r - another scribe commences : wirt si in der dicke des 
waldes und vorwandelt wirt si mit einander. This scribe (3) is 
also Middle German, but different from (1), who consistently wrote 
ous, ouf, and sometimes us, uf, but never au, aw ; this scribe (3) 
generally writes us, uf, sometimes au, but never ou, the most 
common form of (1). Other differences between these two 
scribes will be noted later. Scribe 3 has a strong admixture of 
Bavarian forms, such as guldeiner, bawern, schawen, kaus, mawer ; 
old -ft generally appears as au, aw, except in the words us, uf. 
This scribe continues through the "gepete ieremie," to f. 146'-, 
of which only one-third of a column is filled. The verso is blank. 
F. i47 r - is also blank. With f. I47 v -, at the top, another scribe (4), 
Bavarian, commences: Hie hebt sich an das buch das do heisset 
Judith mit semelichen wort en. The page ends, Judith 1.7: und 
sein hercze wart. | This scribe has ai, ue, au, even in aus, au/, 
which latter writing distinguishes him from both the Middle Ger- 
man scribes, while the absence of further Bavarian characteristics 
distinguishes him from the Bavarian scribe 2. 

On f. I48 r - the Middle German scribe 1 sets in again, Judith 
1. 7 : wart erhaben. Here we have as a rule ous, tousent, but also 
aus, tausent. It is the same scribe 1, but the instances of au 
are more frequent. 

The mixed state of affairs in the first part of vol. 4 is to be 
explained as follows : Vol. 3, it will be remembered, ended with 
Judith 1. 7, scribe 1, and f. 148 of vol. 4 forms the proper con- 
tinuation of this, by the same scribe. By mistake the portion 
written by scribe 3, vol. 4, ff. 11-146, was inserted. Then the 
Bavarian scribe 2 added ff. 1-10 of vol. 4, in order to have Isaiah 
complete. Later, the Bavarian scribe 4 inserted f. 147, in order 
to have Judith complete. He copied this from vol. 3, f. 144, 
which had been written by the Middle German scribe 1, and this 


probably accounts for the absence of further Bavarian character- 
istics, as the passage was not extended enough to enable him to 
get into the swing of his own dialect. That f. 147, and also ff. i-io, 
of vol. 4 were inserted later, is shown by the fact that three-fourths 
off. io v -, as well as the whole of I47 r -, are blank. 

The Middle German scribe 1 continues from f. 148 to the end 
of vol. 4, f. 211. Volume 5, beginning with the Psalter, to f. 186 
incl. is also the work of this scribe, though his language contains 
more Bavarian elements. At the beginning of vol. 5, before the 
Psalter, is a table of contents, beginning : " In dem gegen^urtigen 
puech sind vermerkt die hernachgeben puecher . . ."; and the 
date, 1447. Dr. Goldlin von Tiefenau considers it possible that 
the scribe of this table of contents is the same as the one on f. 147, 
vol. 4, while Jelinek considers it almost certain that they are 

The Middle German scribe 1 continues to Ecclesiasticus 
34. 24: angesichte des vaters. | On f. i87 r -, vol. 5, the Bavarian 
scribe 2 sets in : | das prat der durstigen ist ein leben des armen 
... In this portion characteristic Bavarian forms occur, such 
as dew (= die), gesuechet, chain, gedenkch, andrew, erwekch, 
sckikch, ge/olkleick, froleick, gebund, werich, verpirig, wider- 
beriig (=w), weyroch. 

This scribe continues to the bottom off. i92 v -: si werdent wirt- 
schefften in seine gepoten und | On f. iQ3 r - the Middle German 
scribe 1 sets in again, Ecclesiasticus 39. 37 : | werden sie wirt- 
scheften und ouf der erden in der notdurft werden sie bereitet . . . 
This scribe continues through vol. 5, into vol. 6. Through some 
mistake the rubric at the end of Ecclesiasticus reads genani ist 
sprichworter. Vol. 6 begins with Isaiah, this time in the correct 
order of the Vulgate. Here the diphthong of H is generally 
written au, except in the words ous, ouf. Scribe 1 continues to 
the end off. i23 v< : von den steten iuda | (= Jerem. 34. 7). On 
the next leaf the Bavarian scribe 2 sets in again : | juda gemawrte 
stete das wort das do wart . . . This scribe continues to the 
bottom of f. i30 v -, = Jerem. 40. 1 : gefuert wurde gegen Babilon 
und das ] . On the next leaf the Middle German scribe 1 sets 
in again: | babilon und das haus . . . He continues to the 
bottom of i38 v -, = Jerem. 46. 2 : den do |. On the next leaf the 
Bavarian scribe 2 sets in : | den do slueg nabuchodonasor kunig 
von babilo in dem virden iare ... In this section are a number 
of instances of zwrliesen, and other words with vor-, whereas in 


other places this scribe generally uses the form ver-. The vor- 
must be from the Middle German original. The scribe continues 
to f. 152% = Jerem. 52. 34: uncz bis an de tage seines todes alle 
die tage seines lebens. This is the end of the prophecy of Jere- 
miah, but the Lamentations are omitted. On the next page the 
Middle German scribe 1 sets in again, with the book of Baruch : 
hie hebet sich an di vorrede in das buch baruch. The following 
forms occur: f. \$-g- , pristem, ous; f. 153% aus (2), tak; f. I54 r -, 
gotis,wek, aus, iczleicher; f. i6i v -, auf, gotis, dorin, vor-, wek; 
f. 2o6 v -, aus ; f. 220 v -, ouf, but auf more frequent. In this portion 
au is much more frequent than in the other sections assigned to 
this scribe, but it is reasonably certain that we have to do with 
the same scribe. This scribe continues to the end of f. 224, = 
Ezek. 45. 9: gerichte gar un |. On f. 225 r - the Bavarian scribe 2 
sets in again : | und tut gerechtikait. The writing is quite different 
from the preceding. Characteristic forms occur, such as (f. 225 r ) 
gerechtikait, abschaidt, trukchner, subenten (3), moneids, gays- 
pokch ; f. 227 r -, dresigk, gankch. This scribe continues to the 
end of the work, f. 231'-, middle of col. 1, the end of the book of 

Jelinek, p. 4, does not notice this last change of scribes, f. 224- 
225, and in fact assigns this whole section, ff. 153-231, to the 
Middle German scribe 3, whereas it is very clear that this scribe 
had nothing to do with either of these sections. In the first place, 
the writing on f. 225 shows that a change of scribes occurred 
there, which Jelinek overlooked. In the next place, the section 
153-224 shows ous, aus exclusively, whereas in the portion really 
written by scribe 3, vol. 4, ff. 11-146, us, uf predominate, aus, auf 
occurring now and then, but never ous, ouf, which are the charac- 
teristic forms of scribe 1 ; Jelinek has recognized these differ- 
ences, pp. 38-39, but has failed to take them into account here. 
Furthermore, as regards the last section, vol. 6, ff. 225-231, 
Jelinek's own testimony is sufficient to show that this belongs to 
the Bavarian scribe. On f. 225 alone three instances of subenten, 
for sibenten 'seventh,' occur, and Jelinek, p. 25, states : " suben nur 
beiy" (= Bavarian scribe 2). In conclusion I may state that Dr. 
Goldlin von Tiefenau has compared the above delimitation of 
the various scribes with the MS, and his comparison sustains my 

The following list will give a comprehensive view of the extent 
of the work of the various scribes : 



Middle German scribe 1. 
Vols. 1, 2=240+182=422 ff. 

vol. 3, 

ff. 1- 6 

= 6 



= 121 



= 8 

vol. 4, 

148-21 1 

= 64 

vol. 5, 


= 186 

(( ■ 


= 14 

vol. 6, 


= 123 



= 8 



= 72 


1024 ff. 

Bavarian scribe 2. 

Vol. 3> 

f. 7 = 1 f. 


ff. 129-136= 8 ff. 

vol. 4, 

1- 10=10 

vol. 5, 

187-192= 6 

vol. 6, 

124-130= 7 




225-231= 7 


53 ff- 

Middle German scribe 3. 
Vol.4,ff. 11-146 =136 ff. 

Bavarian scribe 4. 
Vol. 4, f. 147 = 1 f. 

As has already been mentioned incidentally, whenever there is 
a change of scribes, the old scribe ends on the verso of a leaf, 
while the new one invariably commences with a new leaf. Vol. 3, 
f. 7, not being filled, also vol. 4, ff. 1-10, were most probably 
inserted later by scribe 2, on discovering the gaps left by 1 
and 3. Vol. 4, f. 147, was inserted much later by scribe 4. 
The rest of the work of scribe 2 must be considered as having 
been done at the same time as that of 1 and 3. The fact that in 
all these other cases — vol. 3, 129-136; vol. 5, 187-192; vol.6, 124- 
130, 139-152, 225-231 — the pages are full at every change of 
scribes, precludes the possibility of the assumption of Jelinek, pp. 
4, 5, that these portions had dropped out of the original MS, and 
were replaced later by scribe 2. In this case we must assume 
that the original remained with the present copy, and also that 
the original had pages of exactly the same size as the present 
Wb.; otherwise the last page of the inserted parts would not 
have been full, as is shown by vol. 3, f. 7 ; vol. 4, f. 10, f. 147. 
Furthermore, the section vol. 3, 129-136, which contains the 
new translation, could not have been in the original, as in that 
case its limits would not have corresponded exactly with the 
limits of the scribe who wrote it. As the last page of this is full 
also, we must assume that it was written just after the preceding 
portion and just before the following. 


A causal connection probably exists between the various 
changes of scribes and the repetitions occurring there, which are 
to be explained as follows: When scribe i stopped at vol. 3, 128, 
he underscored in the original the last two words that he had 
copied, as a sign for the following scribe. The latter then started 
with the underscored words, but thought he would continue with 
a translation of his own. At the end of his eight leaves he marked 
the place in the original which he had reached, and the next scribe 
copied the underscored word again. This process was repeated 
at each change. F. 152, vol. 6, ends with a book, Jeremiah, and 
consequently there was no repetition. 

In the case of the portions inserted later, the reviser who com- 
pared the copy with the original in the same way underscored the 
last words of the part to be inserted. 

The duplicate version of Isaiah and Jeremiah, in vol. 4, is 
entirely by scribe 3 (except the first ten ff., which were later 
added by 2), and this is the whole extent of the work of that scribe. 
It may be that this was intended for another copy, which has not 
come down to us, and was put into the Wb. by mistake, in place 
of the books following Ezekiel ; or it may be that the scribe 
mistook a mark in the original and began at the wrong place. 

Walther treats this question of the MS and the arrangement of 
the text, col. 291-294, but his treatment is very inaccurate. He 
states that there may have been different scribes at work, but 
where, he does not know — col. 294 : " Es mag der mit dem Gebet 
Manasse beginnende Band auf mehrere Schreiber verteilt worden 
sein, von denen der zweite mit Judith begann, und der erste, ohne 
der ihm gesteckten Grenze sich zu erinnern, einfach seine Perga- 
mentbogen vollschrieb, welche etwas mehr Raum boten als man 
vorher berechnet hatte." He refers then to the duplicate portion 
of Judith 1. 1-7, but his supposition is entirely erroneous, as the 
duplicate page is by scribe 4 and was inserted later. Furthermore, 
the same scribe (1) wrote the first part of Judith in vol. 3, and the 
continuation in vol. 4. There are indeed several scribes in the 
volume to which Walther refers, but not where he supposes them 
to be. 

Concerning the two versions of Isaiah and Jeremiah he says, 
col. 292 : " Ohne Zweifel aber ist jener erste Teil des 4. Bandes 
gar nicht ein Bestandteil der eigentlichen Wenzelbibel, sondern 
dieser nur aus Versehen einverleibt. Denn er ist mit anderer 
Tinte und von anderer Hand geschrieben als das Vorhergehende 


und Nachfolgende ; und die Schreibung der Worte ist meistens 
eine von derjenigen in den tibrigen Teilen abweichende, obwohl 
die Uebersetzung im Grund genau dieselbe ist. So lesen wir in 
der wirklichen Wenzelbibel: zu, ouf, milch, vliessen, wenne, 
menige ; hier dagegen ofter : czu, uff, milich, vlisen, wann, menke. 
Auch begegnen wir hier manchen Versehen, welche der 6. Band 
nicht kennt, und die man fur Horfehler halten mochte. So lautet 
Is. 1. 3 im 4. Bande : Der auch sy hat erchant die chripp, im 6. 
Bande aber richtig und in anderem Dialect: Der ochse hat 
erkannt die crippe." He is here unable to discriminate between 
two very different dialects in vol. 4, Isaiah, though he quotes from 
both — first uff, vlisen, then erchant, chripp ; — he merely assigns 
the whole to a new scribe, writing in a new dialect. 

Next he quotes two other slight inaccuracies in Isaiah, vol.4, to 
show the difference between this text and that of vol. 6: ver- 
stumten in vol. 4 = vertumten in vol. 6, and regel, vol. 4 = rogel, 
vol. 6. These inaccuracies of vol. 4, all of which have been quoted 
above, are insignificant scribal errors and do not prove anything. 
He then shows by a single instance, Is. 60. 5, where vol. 4 has 
correctly die menke des meres, while vol. 6 has only die menige, 
that vol. 4 can not have been copied from vol. 6. Nowhere, 
however, does he eliminate or even mention the possibility that 
both texts may have been copied from one and the same MS, 
unless he takes the above-mentioned differences, which are the 
only ones that he gives, as sufficient to prove this, which is 
certainly not the case. He proceeds, nevertheless : " So sind 
denn die beiden Biicher Isaias und Jeremias im 4. Bande ein 
Teil einer zweiten Handschrift dieses Kreises und von der 
Wenzelbibel auszuschliessen. Genau genommen also wiirden 
wir sie als eine zwblfte Handschrift zu zahlen haben." In this 
connection Walther also fails to note the fact that the duplicate 
translation of Jeremiah contains the Lamentations, while the 
other, in the sixth volume, does not. This fact alone would 
prove that the version in vol. 4 was not copied from vol. 6. By 
calling the version in vol. 4 the duplicate, and eliminating it, the 
MS would have an additional lacuna. 

The agreements of the two texts, which Walther does not con- 
sider, are much greater than the differences, as may be seen by 
reference to the following table, which is by no means exhaustive, 
the instances being taken from extracts which were made for 
other purposes. 















i! C 

*>. ?> 


k .3. 

H) ^) 



«JJ u 

^ ^s 






§ S 3 

^ fee 
^3 8* 


p— i 


i — i 











& & - 
« - 1 

i- S y 




CO « 

"J . 
1-. V 

CU -J) 

JS ^S 

CO » 

cu s- 








a ° 





V a! 

-a co 

.5 ff-s 
cu "o 9 




.a 8 
8 8 







































** - 

& •-* 


•« u 

cu cu 

J3 ;G 

B ■£ 

S <u 


•2 >§ 







co A 






CO U3 

•o .S 

4~» W 









H <U 


cu > 

.a § 
8 3 


















U 1 


8 S 



.B 1 




3 C 

,- <s 




CT 1 


— - .3 

g CO CO 

.3 i-i T3 
co cu 5 

** CJ 



S 8 








. 1 






CU 5 




s is 



co T3 o 


cu « 



3 c« m 





















1— 1 































t— ( 

1— 1 

t— H 


i— , 

1 — I 


These instances in which the two texts of the Wenzelbibel 
agree, as against variant readings of the other MSS, are much 
more important than the differences quoted by Walther. Espe- 
cially noteworthy are the omissions Is. 7. 6, in seiner mitte, and 
Jer. 35. 11, der Caldeer und von der angesicht des heres. The 
insertion, in all the other MSS, of the clause wer widersaget mir, 
is also significant, while the two texts of the Wb. follow the Vul- 
gate. The change of pfeyll to gesckos, Jer. 51. 11, and the 6rder 
hause gotes as against gots hauss also show the close relationship 
of the two texts under discussion. There is consequently no 
valid objection to the supposition that both were copied from one 
and the same MS. 

The translation itself is doubtless of Middle German origin : 
Jelinek places it in Bohemia, in the vicinity of Prague, but he 
does not take into account the other MSS. The present MS is 
probably the oldest of the group, with the possible exception of 
the fragment cgm. 341. The earliest dated MS is Maihingen III 
D. 1, fol. 1 (1437). This also has strongly marked Middle Ger- 
man characteristics, as also the Weimar MS fol. 3-8, dated 1458, 
and the Nurnberg MS cent III, N 41-43, dated 1437-43. The 
MS at Nikolsburg I was unable to examine, as the official in 
charge was absent at the time of my visit. 

The MSS of Walther's second subdivision, which have partly 
this text, partly a different one, are all late, and the Middle Ger- 
man characteristics have been obliterated, as they were written by 
Bavarian scribes: Cgm. 219-221, written 1463, by Oswald Nott, 
at Tegernsee ; cgm. 502-503, written 1463, by Georg Rorer, at 
Regensburg ; Maihingen 1, 3, D., fol. Ill, IV, written 1468, by 
Georg Rorer. Gotha MS 10 is closely related, but date and 
scribe are unknown. The Middle German origin of the transla- 
tion is therefore established beyond peradventure. 

Franklin and Marshall College. W. KURRELMEYER.